@ThePandaPool , He doesn’t give a shît about black people. In fact, it’s likely quite the opposite. He’s basically trying to mock the BLM movement, which is obviously a liberal leaning movement, for also giving a shît about foreigners, as if caring about immigrants and their plight equates to ignoring the plight of the black community. It’s like saying “why are you putting gas in your car when you still need an oil change?” There are important matters to attend to in both cases, but filling up your gas tank doesn’t mean you’re just not planning on changing the oil.

@ThePandaPool , it’s not perfect, but the point still stands. It’s still a matter of “why are you worried about problem A when problem B still exists?” to a group of people who are clearly interested in addressing both problem A and problem B. And again, it’s a clear shîtass move, because this dude is just evoking an issue that I guarantee he doesn’t give two shîts about, and probably denies is even a thing, just so that he can call out libs for caring about something else simultaneously.

@ThePandaPool , i feel like this is using the Left's own virtue signaling against them. If they disagree with him, then you hit them with their own tactics and call them racist for not caring about blacks

@ThePandaPool , they separate us because divided we can’t take the control back. When we’re grouped in small little cliques, we spend too much time bickering amongst ourselves. The narcissism of small differences.
If we stopped paying attention to national media and 2 party politics we’d be so much more united. Who the president is or what he tweeted should have exactly zero impact on our day to day life.

@big freedom, To clarify, you do mean to say “in an ideal government dynamic”, right? And not so much “we need to stop worrying about Trump being a loose cannon”? Because I’d love to go back to not worrying about the daily goings on of the government, but with what’s going on these days, I honestly can’t look away. Seeing how things went down at his presser seriously makes me sick to my stomach.

@Berntley, why pay any attention to it? It doesn’t affect your daily life if you don’t let it. He’s a blow hard. Everyone knows he’s a blowhard. Why should this surprise anyone?
And Accosta is a jàckàss as well. He knew what he was doing and did it to provoke.
Stop paying attention to them.

@big freedom, Honesty, it DOES affect some aspects of my life. Like the new tax code apparently cancelling a significant rebate that almost everyone on my caseload have been claiming for years. Now I have to find some way to help supplement that for the folks who have been holding out to replace their dryer or pay for dentures. Or when my wife’s schedule and pay scale is reworked so that her workplace is “technically” in compliance with new overtime requirements, but without having to pay her a dime more. The thing is, to be able to look past party politics, one has to look hard at what’s happening. It’s more than just joining a third party and deciding that’s the definitive ideology. The rhetoric hurts to take in, but it’s important to recognize the damage it’s causing. and it’s more than just “well the media just does it for ratings”, because a lot of it is little more than direct quotes from actual leaders. I’m really not in a position to ignore it all, as much as I’d like to.

Democrats have been trying for years and have even managed to implement a few programs to directly benefit lower class citizens, specifically minorities. But every time that happens, everybody just calls them communists giving hand outs to people who dont deserve it.
I hate party politics and im not saying “dems are good reps are bad”, but this is one of the issues that I have with (some) republicans

@K1l, just because you give money to a government program doesn't mean it will solve the issue or is the best way to solve the issue. Private charity is able to do what a govt org is tasked with doing for almost 1/3 of the cost.
That means if you allowed people to keep more of their money then charities would have more money (fun fact republicans give about 7% more of their income to charities than their democratic counter parts).
At most the government should be incentivizing people to give what would be their tax money to private charities of their choosing.

@PoliticalOtters, No I underssnd that, but im saying that what the guy in the pic is saying is ridiculous. He’s saying that the democrats dont worry about the “poor black kids” and only focus on immigrants. But in the past and still, the democrats have proposed many programs specifically targeting families in poverty. Even if the plans suck, they have tried/are trying nonetheless.

@K1l, I think the guy in the pic is aware that democrats are well known for implementing programs to provide benefits to minorities to get democrats to realize the problem in choosing to help illegal immigrants when we still haven't resolved the issues we've been working on for decades, and republicans are almost definitely not going to choose to give welfare-type aid to any sort of illegal immigrant, so this has to be directed at democrats, who often do choose to aid illegal aliens.

@K1l, the D’s claim to be benefiting the lower class by implementing policies, but they know that those policies keep the lower class down. The R’s do the same thing. You’re right, party politics suck, but I severely disagree that the D’s are trying to help. They like having this as an issue because it gets voters to show up.

@K1l, @PoliticalOtters *shadow organizations look nervously at political agreement between parties* BREAKING NEWS! UH...REPUBLICANS IN CALIFORNIA HAVE SHOT THE GOVERNOR WITH AR-15's! Reports suggest it was due to talks about adding...uh... *rolls dice* 'gay warming' to the K-12 curriculum! Can GOP be expected to stand idly by? Can DNC accept an open shooting without making new laws? PROMOTE CHAOS-I mean, justice!"

@big freedom, As someone who works with a large portion of people who utilize these programs, I can tell you that a significant part of the problem is that the programs are in place, yes, but they are barely effective. They’ve been stripped of almost all ability to really help anyone, because that’s what the “compromise” usually ends up being. Here’s your public assistance. You have one dollar. Make it work.

@K1l, as a republican I agree, but at the same time programs to help teach people in poverty life skills instead of handouts would be much more valuable.
Many people are stuck in poverty just because they don't know how to live.
They need support still in handouts yes, but that isn't all that gets the job done.

@PoliticalOtters, The thing is, they aren’t donating out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re donating for the benefit of their taxes. And that lends itself to corruption pretty easily. Like Trump using money from his own charity to pay people off, or fix a fountain in front of his own hotel. Trump donates to himself, gets a hefty refund from it, then uses that money for his own gain. From my understanding, the Clintons have operated much the same scheme for some time, as well. Not to mention, hardly anything that you put into a private charity actually goes toward providing help. Do you have any idea how much the CEO’s of charity organizations make? Or how much they spend in expenses, out of company accounts? It’s unbelievable. Sadly, government assistance organizations aren’t free from corruption, either.

@Berntley, but voluntary contributions at least you have some control over how efficient the charity is. “Could lead to corruption” is a far cry from obviously corrupt taxation and cronyism that we have now. I give pretty generously to charities that I know are extremely effective and efficient (opposite of any federal program).

@big freedom, Yeah, I’m glad we agree at least that the party politics are largely a sham. We’re seriously never going to get anywhere else as a nation if we can’t put the whole system under the microscope.
And sure, proclivity for corruption is not proof of corruption, but it’s something to consider. Particularly what at least two presidential families are well known to have greatly benefitted from that very form of corrupt behavior. Of course, they’re always able to find loopholes to make it look like they’re operating within the scope of legality, but that doesn’t make them good people for it. Just goes to show that charitable organizations are, by and large, used as tax havens for the rich.
At least you do your research before you donate, though. Personally, I don’t have much to give outside of providing for my family, but I know I probably wouldn’t trust any place well enough to give to, if I did.

@Berntley, amen to that. You don’t have to give money. Find a local charity that helps kids and volunteer time. While I was in CA, I volunteered with a charity that helps sick kids go to summer camp. Kids that were dying from cancer, or have severe illness get to go be normal kids for a week or 2 each summer. Check it out. TTFF.org. There’s got to be something similar near you. And get your kids to help volunteer as well. They will gain a perspective that would be impossible to learn anywhere else.

@big freedom, That’s so cool, man. Sounds amazing. I definitely plan to do more when my girls are older, but right now, while I’m essentially doing the single dad thing every evening (married, but alternating schedules), and then still being pretty young, there’s just not a lot I can do at the moment. In time, though. At least I can say I’ve already got a career dedicated to helping people, though. For better or worse, I can’t really see myself in any other field.

@griffinstorme,
which is why I said that you could also motivate people to donate by making it an after tax write off. Instead of $500 going to the government $500 goes to the charity of your choice. Just by doing that you're making that $500 almost 3x as effective as its government counter part.
I have not seen any evidence that the wealthy do not give to charity. Until shown otherwise, I'd at most believe that they do not give the same percentage of their wealth as others might. That means their giving more dollars (which is what really matters at the end of the day) than the lower incomes, but lets not forget that most wealthy also have created more wealth and opportunity for everyone than any of the other income brackets.
Regardless you haven't disproven the core of the argument which is that the government should never receive any of the money intended for welfare or aid.

@Berntley, the stuff about Trump and the Clintons seems less a charity issue and more of an oversight/definition of charity issue.
CEO of nonprofits are paid more because that creates competition for them to do better. They squeeze every bit of aid and value they can out of every dollar recieved. That's why private charities can do what their government counter parts can do at almost 1/3 of the cost.

@PoliticalOtters, Right, but who defines and oversees these charities? It’s all a political game, and works primarily toward personal interests.
And honestly, if you’re gonna be the CEO of a charitable organization, it should be because you’re a charitable person. I don’t mean to say they should be paid in peanuts, by any means. They deserve a living wage, and something proportional to their efforts, but when it’s such a large portion of a donation toward a cause that goes toward the mood lighting in their hot tub, I take issue.

@Berntley, The government may define them, but the populace oversees and keeps them in line with their donations.
CEOs of charities do take quite a bit less than their private company counter parts. You can't compare a CEO to what you or I make you have to compare it to other CEOs. The fact of the matter is being a successful CEO is hard and to do it well and to consistently improve the business takes monetary compensation. If you didn't have charity CEO being paid the big bucks then charities wouldn't be able to do the same job the government does at almost 1/3 of the cost.
That also means that even though they're paying the CEO tons more money they're still doing a better job than the government. Paying that CEO leads to a better and cheaper product. That's how bad our current government is at operating a social safety net.

@PoliticalOtters, Which is still a political ploy, in itself. The government castrates these programs on purpose, because naturally, they want to funnel money into charities, where they can reap more benefits, and of course, prop up their buddies along the way.

@Berntley, What? The government does not do all that much to support charities.
By your own claim the government is castrating an ineffective system in order to prop up a better system that also pays the better persons? I fail to see the issue. You'd rather have you money go to a worse system that doesn't help as many people than to the pockets of people you don't like that are helping more people?
You're claim seems to be based on the presumption that government aid can be done better than charities. Historically speaking the data shows that that is not true. Again, charities can do the same job their government counter part does for almost 1/3 of the cost.

@PoliticalOtters, Charities have lobbyists. Charities put effort and funds into wooing politicians to direct attention toward their cause. It’s under the surface shît. And then they’ll also help to institute loopholes that helps those charities to exploit their own funds for their own gain.
And I’m saying that the castration is what makes them ineffective. They’ll look at maybe a handful of recipients of government aid who are maybe gaming the system, and they’ll implement heavier regulations, cut funding, do whatever else in order to “protect” those systems from being exploited, and then they’ll point back to it and say “look how poorly they’re doing! They’re barely effective!” Well, yeah, cuz you raped their funding and destroyed their reputation.

@Berntley, What is wrong with charities wooing politicians to get attention for their cause? At the end of the day thats just a form of marketing. Charities still require that people take money out of their pockets and give it to them.
What "loopholes" does the government give charities that it does not give its own programs?
What I'm saying and have been saying is that governments can throw and have thrown millions of dollars at their government programs and those programs cost about 3x as much to accomplish the same goal that a private charity has. Government programs are inherently bad because they have no incentive structure to be good under our government system.
So them "raping" or giving more funding doesn't seem to actually make them ineffective or more effective respectively.

Because the parties have no desire to solve an issue. The issue is what gets them elected. It’s easy for them if we’re divided into voting groups. The D’s have convinced black people that the Ds are “on their side” through effective messaging.

Disclaimer, I’m a Canadian. So I’m removed from this. However, Canadians pay a lot of attention to American politics as they have so much sway on the Canadian economy as you are our neighbour and largest trading partner. Also, I used to live in Arizona and Texas, where my parents were friends with a few border patrol agents. So I’m familiar with your southern border.
Canadian get a looking in view on your political ongoings as we aren’t directly allied to either of your two parties, just your country as a whole.
I understand that Americans place a high value on their border integrity. That’s totally okay. However it really seems to be a reliably outrage inducing topic that the republicans seem to use as a distraction. That’s a direct observation. Not an opinion.
America says they are happy to receive people who have gone through the proper immigration process. Okay, but if a relatively well to do white family from Canada has a hard time with that (talking about my families experience

@SkeptikalScabies, pt. 2
Then I can’t imagine how impossible it would be for a family from Mexico who has nothing and can barley speak the language to immigrate legally. No wonder they have to sneak in. You’d all do it to if you had to if you wanted a better life.
My point here being that it has been observed year after year that your Republican Party leadership tends to just cycle between issues to constantly muddy the waters in your country without really achieving anything except making themselves money.
And your Democratic Party is dumb because they never seem to stick to their guns against the republicans and call them out.
Downvote away.

@SkeptikalScabies, it’s a good issue for both sides. They could have border and immigration solved tomorrow if they really wanted to. They don’t want to. It’s a useful tool to get their base whipped up and excited to vote. Because “our team good” “orange man bad” party politics.

@SkeptikalScabies, that was actually nice to hear from a third party. Sometimes we’re just heavily influenced what the media says and what our political leaders say. I don’t care for our president, I don’t care for all those crooked republicans that only care about their bottom line, not the peoples. This past election this month I voted 100% for the dems. They’re not perfect either, but having the house and senate controlled by one party does not sit well with me at all. We need a balance in the house and senate so both parties can keep each other in check.

Suppose you cut the funding to illegal aliens. And suppose the amount allocated for illegal aliens is redirected to helping the black poor kids.
2 things may happen.
1) Not enough cash to solve the problem
2) we will get the same picture arguing to help some group in a similar problem.
Just saying.

@vampirefork, and my answer is, there’s some of both. A lot of rich people are extremely generous. They have been rewarded for innovation and rightfully so. Some are greedy. They’ve been rewarded by virtue of who their parents are. Should we forcefully take from them and redistribute to others?

@big freedom, you just made an assumption that I'm a communist twice. Don't make assumptions, it undermines your points. I think that employers just need to pay their employees a fair share of the company that they work for and to stop giving $2bil Christmas bonuses to all the board members when the people sweating under them are paid the company scraps.

@vampirefork, I asked a question... do you see the difference?
Your statements are very “class warfare” like which is indicative of communism.
Please define fair share for me? As an employer, I pay my employees commiserate with the value that they bring to the company. If I paid them less, they would find somewhere else to work, if I paid them more, I’d go out of business and not be able to pay anyone anything. How much of my money does someone deserve? Should I pay someone who cleans up the office the same as a sales rep who brings revenue to the company?
These are honest questions I’m asking you. How do you define fair?

@big freedom, are you running a trillion dollar corporation or is it a small business because those are very different things entirely. Regardless I'll explain in more detail what I mean. I just think that the highest paid position in a company can't be paid more than x% of the lowest paid position. Most small businesses don't have that problem.

@vampirefork, ok. What percentage is fair. Should someone like Steve Jobs be limited in what he can make when he literally invented an entire economy? What’s his X%. And do you lump him in with someone who inherited a thriving business? Do we treat them all the same?
I’m a free market guy. You get to decide who you do business with. The only exception I have to this is the business owners that own politicians. They get to write their own laws that guarantee their outcome. Only way to stop this is to never ever vote for a party politician. Give the power back to the people where it belongs.

@big freedom, you're talking two different things in that post. I don't know what % hence the x. I'm not an economist. And yeah, lobbying is a serious issue and frankly, a lot of these issue could be solved if people could just get over their obsession with money like it's a divine artifact. Greed is a serious problem in this country.

How is it controversial? Lets worry about taking care Americans before taking in other people and giving them handouts. We still have people suffering from Katrina and these idiots want to open the border